On Nine to Noon this morning (National Radio) Kathryn Ryan had both Malcolm Farry and Jeff Dickie on the show, discussing the possibility for the stadium go ahead.
Apart from the usual hot air from the Anti Stadium folk, “I’ve lived here all my life, I love Dunedin” etc etc, there was so much about his rant that is just typical of this whole debate.
Well sorry Mr Dickie, my family too has been here for well over 100 years, there’s a street named after my family and their farm in Kaikorai Valley, and I too am proud to be a Dunedinite – what’s your point?
His assertion that if you are for the stadium you are a Zealot, and if you are against it you are more or less a patriot is just daft. I would guess 99.99% of the people that live in this town are fans of the place, we all love Dunedin. But it’s nice to be able to paint your opponents in the light that there is something wrong with them, and Zealot is a nice term – the implication is that you’ve been brainwashed etc.
He mentioned that he made a submission at the recent planning hearing, and that he was yelled at, and there’s this ‘climate of fear’. Get over yourself!!! If at the submission you were talking about anything that is outside of the realms of the immediate planning issues before the commissioners, then you had no right to do so. As for this climate of fear. Really, are people going to come around and kneecap you, burn your house down, or perhaps just look at you a little differently. There is nothing to fear, if you have the courage of conviction that what you are doing is right, then you should not fear anything. There are no ‘hoods with weapons’ or potential backlashes against those opposing this stadium, more unsubstantiated hogwash that needs to be dispelled as, ironically, fear mongering. I’ve seen it creep into the debate recently, if you oppose this stadium, you should fear a backlash, when in actual fact all you are doing (a la GW Bush) is creating the perception that something should be feared, thus creating your own level of fear.
He again bought up the peer reviews and the spectre of Rodney Hide. Let’s get it stated one more time, the peer reviews DID NOT STATE THAT THIS PROJECT SHOULD NOT GO AHEAD. They issued warnings, and that’s a good thing, warnings at an early stage are good, and need heeding, but nowhere in the peer reviews did they state that the project should be canned. As for Rodney Hide, he doesn’t believe in tax or global warming, say no more.
As stated in the Peer Reviews:
The Design of the Stadium, the selection of materials, design functionality and fitness for purpose has been developed in accordance with internationally recognised standards.
The construction and non-construction costs including contingency and escalation allowances have been independently reviewed and verified to be within normal estimating tolerances.
They did go on to request more information, which of course is prudent. But even with exclusions from material they have already requested, the latest Peer Review did not state that the stadium is a project that can’t go ahead. You claim that councillors haven’t read the Peer Reviews. Do you know this for a fact? I’d find that very hard to believe.
You talk of propaganda time and time again, but the biggest perpetrator of lies, disinformation and propaganda and again today, you have perpetrated that with this ‘culture of fear’ rehash. The sewage and water opportunity costs that you keep raising, are a myth, the council is completing current sewage upgrades and the project to clean up the water quality of the northern outlying districts of Dunedin has started. Back that claim up – or please quite respectfully shut up!
The lines in the sand that you claim are shifting are indeed shifting, but they are shifting against the stadium. Every time the council meets there are extra caveats put on the stadium and its funding, and each time the CST has accepted these new challenges. Jeff, you talk about open and honest debate, and then make some sort of underhanded remark about parochial newspaper (suggesting some sort of bias) – proof? There have been more articles from the insane through to the reasonable from opponents of this stadium that one could imagine. Please if you want those of us supporting this stadium to be ‘honest and open’, could you please stand in front of the same mirror and apply that rule too thank you very much.
Take for instance the Auckland ‘open and robust’ comment with regard to their failed Stadium of New Zealand venture. That was neither open, nor robust, it was two sides shouting a hell of a lot at each other, there was no ‘open and robust’. It was a have, and in the end it was side-lined not by a rigorous debating of the facts, but by political interference. I followed this debate closely and know this to be true. The level of debate around that stadium development and the timeframe was akin to a smoko argument, short and ugly.
I’m not sure which newspaper, TV or other media you have been following, but the level of debate around the new stadium in Dunedin has been huge, the level of financial caveats placed upon the CST and financial lines in the sand is greater now than at any stage of the development of the stadium in Wellington, and this is a fact.
But then you bring up the old tired arguments:
Rugby Initiative – Buzzz WRONG
Awful lot of poor people here – Yes and No
Population too small – Wrong
Buzzz Buzzz Buzzz. Sorry are you living in a bubble, as Malcolm said, have you read any of the material around the stadium. How many sports have come out in support of this project, have many have said they would love it to go ahead? Just last week Soccer South came out in support of the project. Football and Rugby, being collectively the two biggest community sporting organisations in the area, have come out in support of it, that is community. Again to say that this isn’t a multi-use stadium for Rugby, is beyond disinformation, because we know the opposite to be true, therefore it’s a lie. You know the facts yet choose to ignore them.
Again an awful article on the radio, the ‘zealots’ opposing the stadium rehash the same old arguments time and time again, without ever being able to back them up with facts.
This is not a single use stadium and the peer reviews (while critical) did not categorically state the project be canned.
Sorry Jeff, if you want open and robust debate, by all means, I too seek that, but rehashing myths, disinformation and conjecture is not even close to what you seek. Again, stand in front of the mirror and apply the same rules to your comments and concerns please, that’s all I’m asking.
Posted by Paul Le Comte